Firstly; the gas problem. Ironic isn't it, the country that regularly uses lethal injections to end lives is campaigning across the world to cease the use of chemical weapons? There's just something not quite right in all this. Secondly, something a bit more personal, where on Earth are they getting their weapons? Spoiler: images Look at that A1 with the ACOG, HOW? And I mean just... An AUG? Really? And look at how Bammin' Slammin' Bootylicious that AK is. But then like... StG44? So far with revolutions like these it seems having large nations backing your progress only serves to produce a corrupt undercurrent of your democracy provided by whoever the big nation feels comfortable with in charge. The best freedom will be earned with their own blood, no interventions... no support. These revolutions scare world leaders most of all becuase they're "Destabilizing" right? Well they don't mean that they're going to become extremist havens or anti-Isreali or whatever, they mean that they're going to be destabilizing to the existing power balance that is achieved by effectively controlling the ruling leadership of these countries. Russia doesn't want to see Syria move out of its sphere of influence and the US likely wants to do what it can to put a finger into that freedom pie once its comes out of the oven. In the end whether sympathetic to the West or the "East" the idea is that in the end they do what they're told by somebody. Thats what stable means to most of the world. That they become a fully independent nation practicing national self determination without a pat on the back for everything by the US or Russia or China or Iran or whomever is the scariest thing to many of these nations that would either argue that we should not promote regime change (hello Russia) or would supply them with arms (such as the satellites of the US like Saudi Arabia). It sounds callous but if a million have to die to keep other countries from having a more lively corrupting influence in the future of the nation once Assad goes then so be it, unfortunately as things go farther and farther towards completion its more and more acceptable to begin to offer aide. Ironically as Assad more and more attempts to use force to stop the rebels the West gets more and more public sympathy to act to help the Rebels. In history you'll see nations go out of their way to harass and interdict honest democracy to the toll of millions of innocent deaths in order to secure "stability" far more often than you'll see a successful campaign on behalf of the 'freedom' of a people. Even WW2 in the end was just a mad dash to the finish line to see who could grab more power in the new paradigm, and if there ever was an example of purity in the goals of a war it would be that one. No, I don't think any Western nations should be going anywhere near the place. Let them earn freedom on their own. It's easy to say "Yes, Gas is wrong, let's go help, send the troops!" when you're not the one going.
Dilly! It's great to have ya here! But on a more serious note, it seems that a lot of this happened because of the US creating Israel. Well, it would make sense in some ways, then in others, it doesn't.
I don't believe getting involved in Syria would be a good idea. America just got out of a war and shouldn't focus on war but trying to fix the debt. Also we have no idea what the rebels in Syria are actually like. What if they start using the chemicals weapons agains other countries then what? And now the Russia is saying that they would help out Syria I think overall it wouldn't be good for anyone.
Thank you! I don't know if we can blame the creation of Israel in any direct way, but I do think it just goes to show how much damage can be done by one careless action, even when our intentions are good. That argument might support the opinion that we shouldn't get involved in Syria. However, I think we would do well to remember Darfur. With a death toll of over 480,000 the region is considered to be extremely dangerous. Keep in mind, that conflict has been ongoing since 2003, though some improvements to the situation have been made; there has been no permanent solution. Virtually the only thing that makes the events in Syria statistically significant is the fact that chemical weapons have been used. I don't mean to imply that the loss of any number of lives isn't ethically significant, but we've seen worse numbers and not felt the need to help out personally. This really should be the sort of thing the United Nations should handle.
We might as well just send our troops over there. The US Military could probably bring a faster close to the whole conflict. Unless the Russians threaten to send in troops as well. That could... complicate things...
